So, they're willing to put up with any criticism once they're installed in power, but are uncomfortable with any criticism that might prevent them from actually reaching power? That's... not a good look. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx > On 29 Sep 2022, at 09:32, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I am aware of at least one nomination that will probably not be > made --for fear of retaliation or unnecessary disruption -- if > either or both will be made public beyond the Chair and Voting > Members who have an obligation of confidentiality. The > potential nominee is willing a accept any flack or disruption if > actually selected and has no problem with their name (as a > candidate) being public, but believes that disclosure of reasons > or some parts of the questionnaire responses would lead to > actions that would be unnecessarily harmful to the community if > they were public or subject to disclosure by liaisons to the > bodies that sent them.
